Events

Members

To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Brian Quick on the Vincent jackson plan

Do you think so? I'm not sure they'd have Quick trying to learn his duties on special teams when he is having so much trouble learning his WR stuff. No offense to Quick but I don't think they think Quick can handle much new information to say it nicely. What's your thought on that aspect?

Click to expand...

I might have not worded that right. It could get to a number game at WR if a player like Watkins is drafted and which Wr's that can play special teams would be of more value.
Bailey did a great job on St but if he's getting starter snaps a guy needs to step up.
I agree that Quick shouldn't have the burden of learning something else but he might not have no choice.

Some guy are going to like him others are not going to be willing to see that there are a lot of factors that go into a WR's numbers. Just because KC started 9 games and the Rams only threw the ball on average 20 times a game Quick should have had 10 catches a game even if they only threw it to him twice a game.

I don't see why he'd be targeted more with Sam as QB, it's not like Clemens thought "there goes Brian Quick running wide open again, I wish I could throw to him but I'm not Sam Bradford so I'll look elsewhere."

I reserve the right to shut my mouth about Quick because this could very well be the year that he puts it all together. As such, I don't want to be on record speculating about what a waste of a pick he turned out to be. Snead knew gyot damn well how far behind the curve he was. He knew he had seen zero complexity as it relates to offensive schemes. He knew his route tree had two branches in college. And he knew it could take upwards to 3 years before he became productive. I know he knew because he said so and it's true.

Click to expand...

When did he say this? Right after the draft or after Quick had played in the NFL, it carries more weight if it was after the draft otherwise he may have been covering for an awful pick.

Every draft is different - you really think there was a #1 Receiver prospect in that draft? Because I don't.

However I did see Tavon as one hell of a weapon - someone with a mix of barry sander's feet and agility spliced with Desean Jackson speed and the vision of a running back (because he was a running back in high school, and actually wanted to be a RB in College).

I think he'll end up being better than Randall Cobb - and he's not a #1 Receiver for GB either.

I don't think it's a stretch to assume that there was no other receiver as highly rated on their board, and that receiver was their top ranked position of need coupled with Austin being the BPA on said board. That's their prerogative, obviously, but I would have waited for Cordarrelle Patterson myself. I don't know what to say about your Blackmon comment. I have no indication that they even wanted him that badly, and that's evidenced by the fact that they stayed put and gambled on losing him. In my opinion, they could have yielded more picks IF he fell, and that would explain the famous "slammed his glasses on the table" comment offered by Mike Silver. In fact, I think Demoff commented on that scenario in one of our chats. Austin, on the other hand, was someone they HAD to have. Is he worth two players? Sure. Why not? It's an entirely subjective question that only Snead/Fisher can answer. 49ers traded up for Jerry Rice. Rams gave up two picks for Marshall Faulk. Cowboys gave up 4 picks for Tony Dorsett. Tavon could end up being the kind of player who warrants a trade of one extra pick. History will bear that out one way or another.

Vincent Jackson was selected under a different CBA agreement. If he had been selected under the current agreement he would likely have left the Chargers, (as a big disappointment), as a FA after 4 years. Quick hasn't shown he should be a starter up to this point and I think any sudden change is unlikely. If he's a top 2 WR for us by the end of pre-season he should start. If he's #6 or lower he should be cut. I don't blame Quick for his situation with the Rams. I blame Fisher and Snead. After he was selected they both kept saying that Quick was someone who could 'turn on a dime' - the implication being he was so dynamic he could create DB separation simply by sharp changes of speed and direction. I see potential in him but I don't see 'that'. If Fisher and Snead had been honest with fans and said Quick was a project things would have been smoother.

Yamahopper refining his statement:
I might have not worded that right. It could get to a number game at WR if a player like Watkins is drafted and which Wr's that can play special teams would be of more value.
Bailey did a great job on St but if he's getting starter snaps a guy needs to step up.
I agree that Quick shouldn't have the burden of learning something else but he might not have no choice.

Click to expand...

Could be Yamahopper but I think it's more likely that they just decide to bite the bullet on the ST thing and either keep him or just cut/trade him. Not much point in trying to teach me to fly.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to use that new smiley BTW.

I don't think their numbers really compare and I really don't think their situations compare. VJ had to fight through established starters at his position and then compete for touches on a somewhat loaded team. Quick hasn't had any competition and has failed as much or more than he's succeeded with his opportunities.

If he wasn't a pet-project and a source of extreme embarrassment for Snisher, I think he'd be out the door already.

Click to expand...

While they had Gates & Tomlinson, the starting WRs were only a mere solid Eric Parker and Keenan McCardell, who was clearly near the end of his career. The guy was a raw prospect coming out that simply wasn't ready until he was ready.

Maybe we're expecting too much from Quick because he was an early 2nd round pick. With the emergence of Bailey, Austin, and Givens, I hope Quick is the big play guy. If the rams or fans expect Quick to be a route tree running WR than we'll be disappointed. Quick is 6'3 210+. Rams should put him in situations to run deep posts and fade routes.

Vincent Jackson was selected under a different CBA agreement. If he had been selected under the current agreement he would likely have left the Chargers, (as a big disappointment), as a FA after 4 years. Quick hasn't shown he should be a starter up to this point and I think any sudden change is unlikely. If he's a top 2 WR for us by the end of pre-season he should start. If he's #6 or lower he should be cut. I don't blame Quick for his situation with the Rams. I blame Fisher and Snead. After he was selected they both kept saying that Quick was someone who could 'turn on a dime' - the implication being he was so dynamic he could create DB separation simply by sharp changes of speed and direction. I see potential in him but I don't see 'that'. If Fisher and Snead had been honest with fans and said Quick was a project things would have been smoother.

I want Watkins. We need one more offensive weapon, if we intend on keeping defensive coordinators up past midnight. After the first game against the Cardinals, defenses concentrated on stopping Cook up the seam, and swarming Tavon Austin as soon he caught the ball.

About the time Zak Stacy emerges as a threat, Bradford goes down to injury. We won both games, we had Stacy and Bradford on the field the entire game. The Rams averaged 36 points a game in those contests.

Which players will a defensive coordinator focus on when you have Sammy Watkins, Tavon Austin, Cook, Quick, Zak Stacy, and a healthy Sam Bradford all on the field at the same time?

Zak Stacy's running threat will open up Sam Bradford's play action pass potential. It won't be easy for defenses to crowd the box, like Seattle did the last game. And visa versa. Add Watkins to the mix, and suddenly Zak Stacy has even more room to run.

Throw occasional uptempo, no huddle in to the mix. Suppose we line up with 4 wide outs Watkins, Austin, Cook, and Quick, with Stacy in the backfield. A defense would have to commit 5 players, including a deep free safety on those 4 WR's. Somebody is going to be wide open. Also there's a lot of room for Zak Stacy to rumble, if he breaks past the front six.

Watkins would allow the Rams to further explore multiple mismatches. Mismatches are what it's all about. Meanwhile Givens, Bailey and Quick have the 3rd or 4th best DB covering them, instead of one of the top two corners.

Try to resign Saffold and draft 3 or 4 offensive linemen, after all it's possible we may have 13 draft picks.
Of course, I defer to Les Snead and Jeff Fisher. If they take Robinson or Mathews with our first pick, I'll assume they know what they're doing.

Amazing how things 'magically' get fixed when we get a decent OL that Sam has time to throw (as well as stay healthy) and gives the WR's have to to create seperation. If the ingrates would stop dropping the balls all the time that would help as well...

Click to expand...

nailed it, Watkins would be a luxury. an OL to keep SB in the pocket, GOLD
train

nailed it, Watkins would be a luxury. an OL to keep SB in the pocket, GOLD
train

Click to expand...

Amen...It doesn't seem like rocket science but alot of people want the flashy stuff. Kinda like worrying about making sure your car has a flawless body but don't care about the actual thing that makes your car go and gives it realibility, your engine. (or OL) No point having all rest when your engine (OL) needs worked on....

A Go-to receiver that consistently separates, wins 1 on 1 coverage, and catches the ball.. When the games on the line and everyone knows the ball is going to him, he can still make the play.

This team does not have a receiver in that mold. Size, measurables are irrelevant when talking about the niches of the wide receiver position - you don't have to be a world track star or a giant to get open and catch the ball

Well actually -X-, I wasn't confusing him with Quick. That won't happen until later tonight. I was referring to the pick we didn't make in the second round. Kind of like Doyle's "the dog that didn't bark".

I don't see why he'd be targeted more with Sam as QB, it's not like Clemens thought "there goes Brian Quick running wide open again, I wish I could throw to him but I'm not Sam Bradford so I'll look elsewhere."

Click to expand...

Instead of just talking I went to the box scores and got the stats you know as much as I do about what Clemens thought. Quick did not get enough targets for anyone to evaluate his progress 14 targets in 9 games with Clemens at QB.

Instead of just talking I went to the box scores and got the stats you know as much as I do about what Clemens thought. Quick did not get enough targets for anyone to evaluate his progress 14 targets in 9 games with Clemens at QB.

So you're saying that his targets per game followed a poisson distribution, and that the difference between his number of targets with Bradford and Clemens isn't statistically significant at the conventional 5% level? So you think it's conceivable that he wouldn't of been targeted more with Bradford as his QB? I don't necessarily disagree with your argument, but I think it's logical that he would have been targeted slightly more.

You also make an interesting point on how Quick's receptions per targets is higher with Clemens than Bradford (but again as you say it's not statistically significant), are you contending that Sam is less accurate or that Clemens was only willing to throw him passes on shorter routes while Sam took more deep shots and Quick is better suited to that?

I don't feel this way. We saw enough - AS A ROOKIE - to believe he's worth the investment. Give it time, grasshopper.

Click to expand...

For the life of me, I cannot understand why some people are down on Austin. I've heard people complain because he didn't outproduce every rookie receiver despite being the top receiver drafted.

As if we should assess Austin based on petty jealousy rather than judging him as an individual.

He did exactly what we drafted him to do. End of discussion. What Keenan Allen did shouldn't make any difference.

Austin didn't just flash production. He flashed an ability to completely take over a football game. Not since Marshall Faulk have we had a skill-position player who can completely turn a game around in seconds.

And some people are down on him... Give me a break. He's the most exciting thing to happen to the offensive side of the football since 99-01.

So you're saying that his targets per game followed a poisson distribution, and that the difference between his number of targets with Bradford and Clemens isn't statistically significant at the conventional 5% level? So you think it's conceivable that he wouldn't of been targeted more with Bradford as his QB? I don't necessarily disagree with your argument, but I think it's logical that he would have been targeted slightly more.

You also make an interesting point on how Quick's receptions per targets is higher with Clemens than Bradford (but again as you say it's not statistically significant), are you contending that Sam is less accurate or that Clemens was only willing to throw him passes on shorter routes while Sam took more deep shots and Quick is better suited to that?

Click to expand...

There are several things the numbers bear out that I think are over looked when trying to assess Quick progress.

Targets per game were on the rise with Bradford (small sample size) but it was there.
Throws per game in general went down with the change at QB. Clemens just could not be expected to have the same game plan as Bradford
2 of the last 9 games Quick did not get 1 target. There is no way he was not open the entire game and he was getting PT so it has to be considered that Clemens was not confident enough to make the throws and instead chose safer throws to protect the ball.
This offense is not going to be one where 1 guy gets targeted 10 times a game every week. They want to distribute the ball to multiple players and keep the D guessing. If they throw 30 times a game and run 30 times a game Quick will probably see no more than 5 targets on average. Cook, Austin, Bailey if all four of these guys get 5 a game that is 20. Add in the other TEs and RBs and you are running out of targets quickly.

Quick had a couple of jacked up plays everyone remembers where he did not make adjustments to be on the same page as Sam, he was never expected to be a polished WR in 2013. He is not going to be what everyone thinks is the definition of a true #1, neither is anyone else on this team in this offense. The thing is the Rams do not need that kind of WR in this offense to be a winning team.

As for the Bradford vs Clemens targets for Quick, it was pretty obvious that Clemens did not ever want to throw the ball more than ten yards down field. For any WR to get those explosive plays they need those opportunities outside the numbers down field. Clemens did better over all than I expected but he certainly does not have the tools Bradford has.

Since Quick only had 2 drops it makes you think Bradford was less accurate but you still have to factor the lack of PT together and not reading the defense the same attributing to some of the plays that make people say what the heck was he thinking????